balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you very much. i thank my colleague from california. we have had a lively debate this morning on a whole variety of issues that i had no idea i was going to have the pleasure of coming to the floor and talking about the bus trip to senior citizens. about the prescription drug debate in the middle of the night and many of the things that have been part of our process for years before i was ever here. i thank you for that opportunity to go back and forth on these issues. and appreciate your thoughts and our differences of opinion on this issue of health care reform. i want to reiterate we are here today on the issue of algae bloom and red tide and a variety of things that are important to my constituents here in maine. and the reason this bill is on the floor today is because many of those on the other side of the aisle, including my republican colleague who we have been going back and forth with today, mr. dreier, voted no on the bill when it first hit the floor. we are taking it up again.

i would like to close and stick to the topic for a minute and let us move forward with our business today making sure that we continue to bring more bills around jobs here and i hope that we have some republican votes on our future jobs bill and certainly on our health care bill. in closing i just want to say that the 2009 red tide in maine hit our coastal communities hard. . most shellfish harvesters make the majority of their living in the summer months. they were calling the state agencies and asking for help for mortgage payments, utility bills, doctor bills, car payments and even food. in my state and in many coastal states, these are our jobs. these are jobs that keeps families working through the summer and help them get through the winter. the economic impact of closing much of the coast to shellfish harvesters, related businesses, was conservatively estimated between $1.6 million and $2.5

million each week. this is real money to coastal states in every corner of this country. this bill will make a difference for coastal communities with improved testing and tracking, scientists will be able to accurately identify localized areas. this means that smaller portions of the coast will be shut down instead of entire regions. in addition, it will build on so much of the good work that has already been done, improve our prediction and monitoring capabilities and take steps to eliminate red tides. reneed a national program to coordinating and integrating national resources to minimize or even prevent this in fresh or saltwater. enhanced coordination will help resource managers make better decisions, and with better decisions will come less economic hardship in our coastal communities. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous

question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. and wowed a motion to reconsider is laid -- and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the reconsider is laid on the table. 111-439 is ato wanted

and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. after one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order to consider amendment if offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from washington and the gentleman from texas each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. baird: mr. chair, thank you for the recognition. i'd yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. baird: h.r. 3650, the harmful algal blooms and hypoxia research and control amendments act of 2010, as amended, is a good, bipartisan bill. the bill represents a timely and necessarily step to address the large and growing problems of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.

the the harmful algal blooms and hypoxia research and control amendments was last re-authorized in 2004. since the last re-authorization, there's been answer increase in the number of frequency and types of algal blooms and hypoxia events. it can affect the areas where they occur, they can close beaches and kill phishes fish. i listened to the debate on the rule prior to our debating the bill itself. part of the question of why we are debating this is, it's simple, it can kill you. it does kill some of our citizens every year. it kills countless numbers of fish life. it destroys tourism. it cost hundreds of millions of dollars. that seems to be good to bring it up. as my good friend from florida will attest, his tour industry as well as mine and the gentleman from california and my colleague from texas all have beaches which are adversely affected. if the issue we're concerned about is jobs, harmful algal blooms is a destroyer of jobs

in addition to takers of lives. in freshwater, they present a toxin that's hard to see. all of the things you can purify won't work. boiling separates the toxin from the algae and concentrates the algae. they -- and you can't filter it because it breaks down the bodies of the algae and that also releases the toxin. color even doesn't work because color even is designed to kill protozoa and it's not protozoa. so we've got a very dangerous problem. and beyond that it is a problem that's expanding in duration. harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events are starting early in the season and lasting longer. they are going larger in scale and spreading around the country and we have some ideas about why. we have some ideas about how to control them, but we don't know

for certain and that is why this bill matters and that is why my colleague, mr. mack, mr. ehlers and others have worked on it. we have taken some important steps since 1998 and 2004. again, i want to commend my colleague, vern ehlers, who has been instrumental on this issue for many, many years. the bill before us would establish a national harmal bloom and hypoxia program within the no -- the national oceanic and atmospheric administration tasked with the implementation of this national program. habs again doesn't just effect our coast lines. from west virginia to the great lakes, throughout this country, every single state in the union, whether it's freshwater or marine ecosystems has been affected by this. my area has a dead zone that expands every year. we have increasing dead zones and red tides devastate our

tourism season when they stop the clamming season. questions have been raised about the authorized funding levels in this bill, but the increased investment in this bill is necessary to address the harmful economic impacts and health impacts that have imposed on our country. a minimum impact of $82 million was reported. this bill is the product of a bipartisan collaboration, contains the input of both democratic and republican members. as i mentioned, dr. vern ehlers, connie mack, as well as on our side, mr. kratovil and mississippi castor, have offered valuable input. this bill is a product of two hearings, a subcommittee markup, a full committee markup, the three house committees with jurisdiction over the bill, as well as negotiations with the senate commerce committee. the bill represents a focused effort to address the specific issues of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. i urge my colleagues to support the bill, and i will reserve

the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hall: the bill before us today is the same bill that was before this body three days ago. as such, i don't have much to add today except to compliment the gentleman from washington and tell him that he's made a difference the time he's been here and will be missed when he leaves in november. and it's tough to go against a bill that i'm in favor of the thrust that he has, but i have some concerns about it. i will simply reiterate that i'm supportive of the underlying goals of this legislation. it fosters continued research into the causes of harmful algal blooms, explores ways to manage these events and sets up mechanisms to potentially predict when they might even occur. while supportive of the goals of the measure, i and several of my republican colleagues --

and there's a difference among us on this side -- have some concerns about the authorization levels in this bill as well as the potential for unfunded mandates on states and localities. this bill authorizes funding that's almost three times the amount that has been appropriated in recent years and is 50% higher than the last re-authorization in 2004. in authorizing legislation, we must be mindful of fiscal constraints. i look forward to working with mr. baird and those in the house science and technology committee as this bill moves through the process. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. baird: i'd just point out as he is aware -- first of all, i want to thank him for support of the underlying issue here. i think the recognition of the severity of this problem is much appreciated. as mr. mack will attest to in just a moment. regarding the issue of unfunded mandates, the congressional budget office has looked at this legislation and determined

specifically that it does not impose any unfunded mandates. so i respect the concern, but would offer assurance that it is not. considered a problem at least by c.b.o. regarding the authorization levels, we discussed these levels at some length. given the severity of the problem we began with a higher number in consult with our friends on the other side of the aisle, we actually lowered the number. the number is an authorizing number. it is not an appropriated amount. our premise is the problem actually perhaps deserves substantially more money than we have been spending on it because it is a deadly threat, and an economic loss, but we recognize that probably now actual appropriated levels will fall below authorization having a -- and having an authorization process allows us to -- with that i'm happy to recognize the gentlelady from florida, ms. castor, who's been a champion of this as it affects so much of her state, and i recognize her for as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman is recognized. ms. castor: good morning, mr. speaker. i'm very pleased to rise in strong support of h.r. 3650. i call this the red tide bill. i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. baird, for his great leadership on this initiative. i've heard some discussion here in the chamber and throughout the capital the last couple of days, why are we taking up tides with algae? well, let's not diminish the issue because this is vitally important for jobs throughout the great state of florida. i'm very pleased that my colleague from florida is in the chair this morning to preside over this. we simply can't go backwards when it comes to jobs in our economy. and red tide is a significant threat to the tourism economy in the state of florida. we depend in florida upon people coming from all over the country and the world to vacation, especially on the beautiful beaches on the west coast of florida where you have

the warm waters of the gulf of mexico. there are no better beaches across the entire world than there on the west coast of florida. now, also on the atlantic side is quite lovely and the florida keys. we face a significant threat from red tides. the tourism industry in florida employs over one million people and it is estimated that tourism has a $65 billion impact on our state's economy. . %%%. what happens when this red tide washes in, it's awful. the tourists flea the beaches and the folks -- flee the beaches and the folks that live and work and rely upon those industries really suffer. this happened just a few years ago in 2005. we had terrible red tide outbreaks on the west coast of florida.

and i can tell you because i had my family there at the beach with about a dozen other families. we go right after school is out. and what happens is that it causes you -- a lot of difficulty in breathing. your eyes start to water. the fish roll up on -- wash up on the shore, dead fish. you can forget about it. our economy took a real hit because of red tide. the tourists simply don't want to visit polluted beaches. we have beautiful, clean, crystal clear water most of the time. when this red tide invades, it's absolutely awful. you can see where it's directly tied to jobs because then the word spreads. there were news stories over in england and great britain where a lot of our tourists come from and they decided not to take their vacation. now if that happened in this economy, it would be very detrimental. so today's legislation will

help us combat that threat. i would like to thank especially thank my colleague from florida, representative connie mack, who does represent the naples, sanibel island area, and there is simply no more beautiful place to vacation than maybe up towards my district in anna maria identify lan. congressman mack and i -- island. congressman mack and i have been working on this since 2007. we introduced the save our shores act to bring more attention to the research in red tide. that's why i'm so grat tide that the science committee, mr. baird, mr. barton have really stepped up and promoted this. it's a bipartisan effort. it's important because it comes on the heels of the tourism bill, the travel promotion act that was signed into law by president obama just last week. it's another good bolstering of the tourism economy and all those important jobs to the sunshine state and all across the country. this legislation will ensure

that we learn more about harmful algae blooms so that we can protect our precious coastlines and the tourism related jobs that come with having healthy beaches. according to the national centers for coastal ocean science, the national economic impact of the red tide, the harmful algae blooms, is at least $82 million annually f we can pump in a little bit of research money and figure out what causes this, see that's the problem. we don't really know what causes this red tide. if we are already suffering an $82 million hit, then it is very cost-effective for us to put a little bit more money into research and coordination. there is a lot of good research out there, but i don't think it's being shared widely. so this initiative will help do that. i think we'll be able to avoid devastating losses to tourism, to recreation, to commercial fishing. all across the country. in 1971, florida faced an

exceptionally case of red tide and again in 2005. we think that that caused -- florida took a hit of over $100 million. the level of concern about red tide's cost to tourism is still high, even though it's been a couple years since our last big outbreak. but like i said, if we had an outbreak today in this economy, it would severely hurt businesses at a time when we just can't take it anymore. the unemployment rate in my community is about 13%. we rely on folks needing some relaxation time and vacations in the beautiful sunshine state. so that's why i strongly support this initiative. again i want to thank my colleague, representative mack from florida, mr. baird, the science and technology committee, and i'm pleased to urge all my colleagues to vote for h.r. 3650. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas. mr. hall: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. mack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mack: thank you very much. i want to thank the chairman, mr. baird, for his work on this important issue. i also want to thank the ranking member, mr. hall, for his hard work and dedication. and also want to recognize that in this bill there may be a lot of people who have concerns about the funding levels and i'll just pick up where the chairman talked about that this is an authorizing bill. this is not the appropriations process. but it is important that we recognize that for our researchers around the country they need to be able to plan looking forward. if they constantly are relying on funding to be done through the appropriations process once a year, whether or not they are going to have the research

dollars or not, that is no way to conduct quality research. especially on an issue that's so important. and i, too, call this red tide. this is an important issue for all of us, not just those that live along the coast. but for all of us. when people go on vacation, it used to be thought that red tide was only something that affected the marine life. but now we have seen that this has crossed over and affecting not only the quality of life of people who live or vacation at the beach, but also can cause death. so this -- i commend the committee for this bill. passing this important legislation is the first step in increasing research for red tide while ensuring that scientists and experts in the field and not politicians determine where research money is spent. and this is an important fact because right now me and all of my colleagues, we try to make

sure we bring some money home for our local research organizations. which we support. but in this legislation what we are saying is, let's have a peer review group look at the research projects that are out there and let them decide, let scientists decide what's most important, what research is to be supported and funded. this is very important for everybody at home, for those people who want to make sure that we control spending, the best way to control spending is -- one of the ways through this bill is to make sure that peer review groups are deciding where the money's going, not every member of congress fighting for their own little project in their backyard. oceans champions and others have been working hard on this legislation. we need to support them as well.

on a last note, growing up in southwest florida i would -- we spent -- i spent my whole life on the water in sanibel and captiva, and we would have red tide maybe one week out of the year. not too long ago -- may i request an additional minute. mr. hall: i yield another minute. mr. mack: we would have an outbreak of maybe once a year for one week. not too long ago we had 13 months of straight red tide off the coast of florida in southwest florida. clearly something is changing, something is happening. and right now, frankly, i don't know that we can trust all the research that's out there. this bill will ensure that we can trust the research that's happening, that it's done through a peer review group, through noaa, and that we will have reporting to the congress on those findings so we can continue to monitor and hopefully eliminate or begin to

control red tide so the citizens of this great country can enjoy the beaches. our economies can grow and quality of life can improve. thank you for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. baird: i want to commend the gentleman from florida. his personal story is one we hear so often. he know it is first hand from his time in childhood, an occasional red tide where his parents said you can't go swimming today, son. to a 13-month period of red tide. earlier when i said we have seen an expansion in duration, in size, and in breadth across the country, that's what i'm referring to. i'm sure this is true of both of my colleagues from florida. if you're a hotel owner and you get notice that a red tide is forming off your beach, that's it. you basically can kiss your entire season much income, or at least a good part of it, goodbye. where i'm from in the pacific

northwest, clamming, razor clams, are one of the great things that draw people to the coast. our beaches are covered with people who go out in the early morning, it's a wonderful delicacy, and people look forward to it year-round. it is the high season in the coast. except if a scientist is out there and says we have an algae bloom forming and it is not safe for people to eat the shellfish or to swim in this water at this time. why isn't it safe? first i want to underscore most shellfish from around our country is safe. but during these periods it is not. here's why. the toxin it forms is a neuro toxin. it attacks your brain. it's called paralitic shellfish poisoning. sometimes you'll hear it as am nearby yotic shellfish poisoning. it attacks the part of your brain that turns short-term memories into long-term memory. this is a bad thing.

this means that you can't learn new information. so when people say this is algae, what do we care about algae? i heard this a lot. why are we coming back into session to talk about algae? well, i hope people can remember that it's -- if they eat shellish, with the poisoning, they can dy. their brain can be damaged. their children's brain can be damaged. somebody says mom and dad, it's just red tide, i'm going swimming anyway. you can't let that happen. the kid will die. it's that serious. let me turn to the fresh water. a true story from my district. imagine you take your family dog, your beloved favorite pet, to the water that you always take them to, you take the tennis ball and fling it out into the water an your retriever jumps in the water, swims out, grabs that tennis ball, swims back to the shore, you take the tennis ball out, you turn to throw it, and the dog is dying before your eyes.

that really happened. it happened in my district. in a lake that when there is not an algae bloom, they swim in it, take their dog there. from one week when it was safe for that dog to go in the water, the owner comes back the next week and through no fault of their own the dog does everything it normally does and it dies. if i had a glass of clear water here and someone was saying, what a waste of time, what a waste of time it is to work on this, and it has the toxin from blue green algae, person who drank that water would die. if it's your fresh water system, a large reservoir for municipality, and you get a blue green algae bloom in that with toxins, i would ask my colleagues who are skeptical about this, tell me how you get it out? there are mechanisms, but they are not easy and they are very costly. how do you get it out of there? and more importantly, tell me how you're going to give the

people who you represent clean drinking water if your water system is contaminated? if you depend on surface reservoir and you get a blue green algae bloom, you are in deep trouble and you are looking at a lot of money and possibly some deaths of your constituents. mr. mack talked about a little bit about hypoxia, a huge problem in the gulf. let me put this in terms we understand. high poxic zones are areas where the algae has dedeposed and that process has taken the air out of the water. imagine if you were walking your normal route to work or to your home, and suddenly invisibly you went into an area where there was no oxygen in the air. you are walking, a route you normally pass, no oxygen, what happens? you suffocate, you die. that's what dead zones do. hundreds of thousands, millions

of aquatic fish, the very fish that our fishermen on our coastal communities depend on, the very fish we eat and enjoy, they just flat die. they are swimming in their normal, maybe their migratory route, reproductive areas, they go into this area, they can't tell there is no oxygen in the water. they swim into it. they have no oxygen, and they die in enormous quantities. then they wash up on the beaches as a pleasant attraction for our tourism industry. that's why we are taking this bill up today. i know people wanted to go home. goodness gracious in body we stick around to honor sports teams. we praise movie stars. this is something that can kill you, for goodness sakes. i want to also make sure we thank the many scientist who is have done the work on this legislation. scientists around the country are trying to study the causes, trying to study the interventions, they literally evaluate our beaches around the country and our fresh water systems on a daily basis, and give us the information we need to protect the public safety and health. i want to make sure i commend

them. at this point i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: may i inquire as to whether you have other speakers or not? i ask that in order to grant you my time because i have no more speakers. mr. baird: we had expected another speaker but we understand that person may not be here. mr. hall: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. baird: mr. hall, i don't think we have other speakers. so i don't have other speakers at this time. if you are prepared to yield back, i will yield back. . mr. hall: to be guarding against unfunded mandates reach probably a conference committee somewhere down the road, i'd like to have that remembered. and authorizing legislation, we have to still be mindful of fiscal constraints, both at the federal and state level. the president's budget request for noaa program is $12.7 million. $41 million in authorization is

significantly above the request. it's a good program, great thrust. i support the thrust. i just ask those who vote upon it for or against it to remember the unfunded mandate danger and the fact it's well above the -- and i see dr. ehlers here who is probably going to disagree with me, and i yield him -- how much time do you want? three minutes or four minutes. i yield him five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ehlers: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i won't disagree with him, but i'm sorry i was late. i was at another event where i had to speak, but i simply want to go on the record in support of this bill. it's the same bill -- essentially the same bill that i introduced several years ago when we were in the majority and it did pass then. a major change now is, of

course, increased funding because of the increased need that has occurred. habs are nationwide problems. it's grown tremendously in the last decade, not just in the gulf of mexico now, but also in the great lakes, chesapeake bay, california, pacific northwest, etc. and this is a problem that just simply has to be dealt with. it is hurting the fishing industry tremendously, and i recognize that there's concern about the cost of the bill. first of all, i'm sure we will not be appropriating as much money as authorized, but secondly, you have to measure the effect on commerce of this bill, particularly the commercial fishing industry, but also the safety of the tourism industry. if we do not correct this problem and it continues to spread, we will soon find the tourist industry off the southern coast, particularly florida and the gulf states and

also texas, will be injured because people won't be able to use the waters as they would like to. this could create additional problems. i won't go into all the details. do i have a prepared statement which i will submit. but i just want to go on record as supporting this bill very strongly. i worked with mr. baird. i was sponsor a few years ago and he helped me. he's the sponsor now and i've helped him. i just want to encourage the body to vote for this bill and adopt it. and the cost issue is certainly a legitimate one. it always is. but i think that is best to address through the appropriations process. but certainly the need to go after this and find out what the -- why is the problem becoming so much worse and what can we do to stop it, i'm hoping that through research we can stop it with far less cost than we're talking about in this bill but we won't know

until we do the research and get into it. i want to thank the ranking member, mr. hall, who does yeoman work on the committee this year, thank him for yielding time to me and thank him for all the work he's done and urge the body to adopt this particular bill. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. baird: i'm so delighted that mr. ehlers is here for a number of reasons. first of all, the history of harmful algal bloom legislation really ose its existence -- owes its existence to this the gentleman. as a scientist, as someone who cares passionately about his state and the great lakes, i'd say without any hesitation, the great lakes have had no stronger champion in the congress than this gentleman here, dr. ehlers. and for that matter, i believe science itself has had no stronger champion. and if you look at his contributions on the great lakes, harmful algal blooms, i just mentioned. invasive species, he's been a champion in trying to fight the

zebra muss sell, which is the kind -- mussel, which is the kind of thing when someone says, why are we trying to fight this? well, it costs hundreds of thousands a year in property loss and economic loss. yesterday we were on a panel together, and he was raising the very important issue of the possible invasion of carp into the great lakes system which would devastate the sports fishing and other industries in the great lakes. the other reason i think is particularly appropriate that he's here is when we speak about red tide, inland communities may say, we don't have any marine waters. why do we care? the great lakes are a classic example of an area where harmal algal blooms can effect freshwaters as well as maritime waters. so my hat is off to dr. ehlers, my gratitude for his leadership on this over the years, and i would inquire -- and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: is it the understanding of the chair that the gentleman from arizona will not be offering an amendment? does the gentleman from washington yield back? mr. baird: i'd like to thank my friend and colleague from texas, the gentleman from florida, mr. mack, mr. kratovil. i urge passage. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time has been yielded back. does the gentleman from texas -- mr. hall: we have no further speakers and we yield back, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. but is it the understanding of the chair that the gentleman from arizona will not be offering his amendment? is that correct? mr. hall: yes. the speaker pro tempore: ok. pursuant to house resolution 1168, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to establish a national harmal algal bloom and hypoxia program, to develop and coordinate a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and to provide for the development and implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. the gentleman from washington. mr. baird: with that i would ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule

20, this 15-minute vote on passage of h.r. 3650 will be followed by five-minute votes on the speaker's approval of the journal and the motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 4506. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 251, the nays are 173. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 199, the nays are 144 with one member answering present.

the speaker pro tempore: on

this vote the yeas are 203, the nays are 144 with one member answering present. the journal stands as approved. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4506 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4506, a bill to authorize the appointment of additional bankruptcy judges, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro on this vote the yeas are 345. the nays are five. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, yesterday i debated the impeachment resolution, h.res. 1031, but i was delayed in a health care discussion and meeting which caused me to miss roll call vote 102 of article 1 of h.res. 1031, the impeachment resolution. i ask unanimous consent to place my vote in the record. if i was present i would have voted aye. i ask it to be placed in the record in the appropriate place. ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman's statement will appear in the record. ms. jackson lee: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada rise? ms. berkley: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of h.r. 562, a bill originally introduced by representative neal abercrombie

of hawaii, for purposes of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. berkley: madam speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that i may hereafter being considered as the first sponsor of h.r. 3333, a bill originally introduced by representative neal abercrombie of hawaii, for the purposes of adding co-sponsors and reprinting, pursuant to clause 7 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. berkley: thank you, madam ms. berkley: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: madam speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute for the purposes of inquiring about next week's

schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker. i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purposes of announcing next week's schedule. i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend and republican whip for yielding. on monday, madam speaker, the house will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for lemming business. with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. madam speaker, on tuesday, the house will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour debate, and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend. will the members please take their conversations off the floor. i'm sorry. you may resume. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including a number of bills

focused on improving government operations. plain language act, h.r. 946, by representative braley, h.r. 4720, taking responsibility for congressional pay act, representative kirkpatrick, a complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today as is the custom. in addition, we'll consider further action on h.r. 1586, the f.a.a. air transportation modernization and safety improvement act. further action on the jobs agenda is possible. and further action on health care legislation is also possible. . i yield back to the gentleman. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i think it's been well reported that the majority plans to try and use the reconciliation process to ram through a health care bill through this house and the one across the capitol, and we also know from the reports that it is imperative that this house and the house majority, the

members of the majority must first pass the senate health care bill before any other action on a reconciliation measure is taken. the gentleman has announced, madam speaker, that all this will take place next week. and i'd wonder if the gentleman could give us a little bit more clarity as to the schedule and perhaps the need for members to keep their schedules flexible through the weekend and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first, let me say, no matter how often the gentleman and his colleagues want to say so, we are going to ram through something, no matter how many times the press and public may be misled by that assertion, we're not ramming through anything, i tell my friend. we are following the rules of the house and following the rules of the senate that have been decades in existence. which have been used when they've been used 72% of the

time they've been used, 72% of the time they've been used, i tell my friend. your party used them. they are the rules. we're going to follow the rules. both bills that are pending before the congress of the united states have been passed with over a majority. and in fact, the senate by was passed by a 60% majority, i tell my friend, not ram through. after a full year of debate and discussion, scores of hearings, hundreds of witnesses, thousands of hours of consideration. i tell my friend that you can say we are ramming something through as much as you want and it will not make it through. no matter how often it is said by your side of the aisle who in my opinion want simply to stop the legislation in its tracks. i tell my friend that we're going to be in the regular

order as we have been on these bills since they were introduced. we're going to be in the regular order in terms of considering the passage of bills that was received in both houses. and as i say again, the senate bill has received a 60% majority in its house. now, the american people frankly expect when we vote on bills they expect things to pass by a majority vote. they do here. they unfortunately don't in the other body. so you are going to have 69% to give children health care and children don't get health care. so i say to my friend, we're going to, as i said, the expectation is we'll consider passing health care legislation this coming week. we think it's long overdue. we expect the budget committee to mark up a reconciliation

bill as the committee did when the republicans were in charge on 16 occasions out of the 22 that reconciliation has been used. 72% of the time, as i want to reiterate, because i frankly get a little impatient with this assertion that somehow a process that you utilized 72% of the times been utilized, which means we used it 28%, that somehow when we're using it it is somehow now not consistent with the rule. my friend knows it is consistent with the rules and we are pursuing that process. the committee, i suspect, will mark up on monday. i expect them thereafter the rules committee to meet as is consistent with the rules to prepare a reconciliation bill to report it to this floor. i expect them to report a rule, to consider that reconciliation bill, and i expect that reconciliation bill to be considered. i yield back.

mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, all i asked was whether the members should be prepared to be here over the weekend, and i yield. mr. hoyer: you said a number of things before that which is what i was responding to. but, yes, members should be prepared to be here next weekend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and, madam speaker, without having to delve back into the debate on what makes this health care different, health care bill different than the other times reconciliation was used, i think the american people are those that see the obvious. but i would ask the gentleman, since he says we will be employing regular order here, in response to the president's request that there be an up or down vote in the house, could the gentleman give us some enlightenment as to the suggestions surrounding something called the slaughter solution and whether in fact

members can have an up or down vote, a clean up or down vote on this bill or whether there will be some procedural maneuvering, self-executing rule deeming the senate bill passed, if he could give us some indication of what we may be able to expect next week, and i yield? mr. hoyer: well, of course, as the gentleman knows, the gentleman's party has used that process as well, as i'm sure the gentleman knows. but in any event, we will follow the rules. we will have a vote on the rules, consistent with the rules. i have not talked to the chairwoman of the rules committee at this point in time so that i cannot give you a specific response and have not heard -- this is the first time i heard something referred to in the terms you just referred to it as. but we will provide for a rule for consideration of the senate bill for reconciliation.

and the process of doing so will be consistent with the rules. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and, madam speaker, i'd like to ask again, consistent with the president's request that there will be an up or down vote on the senate bill itself, can we expect an up or down vote on the senate bill itself, and i yield? mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. what the president was referring to, of course, an up or down vote was the majority vote. one of the problems we've had in the senate, as the gentleman knows, and experienced as well when his party was in the majority, it's difficult to get an up or down vote when the majority of the senate is for something. they got together an extraordinary majority, some 60 votes, before they can bring a bill to the floor. that process, obviously, thwarts, does not facilitate a vote by the majority. in fact a minority in the senate on a regular basis thwarts the will of the majority. that's what the president was referring to. that he wanted an up or down

vote on that, and i expect we are going to get an up or down vote in the senate. why? because in the senate they have rules that we are going to follow, as did you in 16 out of the 22 times, that allow for an up or down majority vote in the united states senate. we have to have, as you know, a majority vote in the house, and we consistently do have measures that can fail or succeed, depending upon the will of the majority as opposed to the thwarting by the minority. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, madam speaker. and i know the gentleman would like to speak to the senate. we're trying to focus on the house here and what the vote will look like. and since the gentleman has indicated that the president and he and all of america would like to see a vote up or down in this house as well, i'd ask the gentleman whether we can expect an up or down vote on the health care bill itself or

not and i yield. mr. hoyer: i tell the gentleman that nothing will pass here without a majority vote. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i take that to mean that there's a likelihood that we will not see an up or down vote on the senate bill itself and that perhaps these reports of a concept called the slaughter solution in which the majority will deem passed the senate bill in some type of procedural move that maybe the public can expect that to happen. i know that the gentleman does not think that that represents the kind of vote that the american people expect, but i take that to mean that certainly is a possibility. madam speaker, i'd ask the gentleman whether he expects the house to have 72 hours to review whatever legislation comes to the floor next week, and i yield. mr. hoyer: i expect the house

to have very significant time to consider the proposals that will come out of the budget committee and/or the rules committee. and this bill, of course, has been -- either bill, the house bill or senate bill, as proposed, has been on the -- online for some 2 1/2 months. otherwise known about 75 days. so there's been ample time to review the bill. whether it's the senate bill or the house bill. so my friend is well aware of what's in the senate bill or the house bill. as well, the president put online his proposed compromises between the house and the senate which have been the subject of great discussion, including the bipartisan meeting that the gentleman and i attended at the white house, an extraordinary, historical meeting which the president invited leaders from both

parties and both houses to come and discuss what he believed to be an historic opportunity to provide health care for -- accessibility for all americans. so i say to my friend that we will certainly give as much notice as possible, but i'm not going to say that 72 hours is going to be the litmus test, per se, because that which we have voted on already in the house and the senate have given members months' notice, and the american public months of notice on the substance of the propositions that are pending before us. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. again, i'm a little bit taken aback that now the 72-hour rule has been completely cast aside since nobody in the house has seen what's in the reconciliation bill. at least i speak to the members on our side of the aisle that have had not an opportunity to

see what's in the reconciliation bill and i would nadge would have some of the provisions that -- imagine would have some of the provisions in the president's plan put up online prior to the blair house meeting. again, it's rather disturbing, madam speaker, that the 72-hour rule has now been completely cast aside -- mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. first of all, the 72-hour rule, i didn't say that we were casting aside any rule. nor did i say that we may not have more than 72 hours' notice. you may well have more than 72 hours' notice. what i said was i am not going to commit myself and then have a 70 hours as opposed to 72 hours and think i violated some representation i made. we want to give as much notice as we possibly can. this has been a very difficult discussion, as you well know, members on your side of the

aisle in the other body have indicated they're going to do everything in their power to stop passage of this legislation. so we need to get about this business and engage, if you will. mr. cantor: well, i thank the gentleman. i guess the gentleman may begin to understand why it is that some on our side of the aisle, including yours truly, depicted this ramming the bill through. i mean, if we can't even get a commitment that he -- that the gentleman as well as the speaker had indicated prior that we would have 72 hours to review -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: legislation to come to the floor. i think that's consistent to the depiction that there is a ramming through going on. i yield. mr. hoyer: the gentleman had 72 days, i tell him, to review the bill that he refers to. 72 days, not 72 hours, 72 days in final form to review the bill. now, you can keep saying this,

you can keep telling the american public that somehow we're ramming something through. you have had, i tell the gentleman, and you know you've had 72 days at least to review the bill as it stands today. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i tell the gentleman again, we are expecting, as he has said, to see a new bill, a reconciliation bill on the floor next week. that bill no one on our side of the aisle has had an opportunity to see. perhaps the congressional budget office has had 72 hours to see it but we haven't. no one, i believe, has had 72 hours in this body to see the reconciliation bill. that is the bill that i'm speaking to. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank you. let me repeat the process that i'm sure the gentleman knows well. the budget committee will meet. they will report out the bills that are to be reconciled. the rules committee will then take them under consideration shortly thereafter and will

present a reconciliation bill. we will all see it at that point in time. it will obviously do exactly what the instructions that we adopted in the budget a year ago instructed it to do and that is to reconcile these bills and we'll have a fiscal positive effect, in my view. i haven't seen it finally, but my expectation will have a positive fiscal impact and we will all see that, but it will simply will be following the instructions that the budget committee in which the budget passed -- a majority of the house did vote for it. i know that the other body doesn't like the majority will. maybe that's not the case here, but i will tell the gentleman that, yes, he's going to see the reconciliation bill. and as i said, the reconciliation bill, which will be drafted by the rules committee after the budget committee reports to it the

process that you followed on a regular basis when you utilized reconciliation, we will hope to have as much notice of that particular piece of legislation as possible. but i tell my friend again, when he refers to the health care bill, the senate bill or the house bill, you have had months to review the substance of that bill. you don't like it. we understand that. you're going to oppose it. we understand that as well. but the fact of the matter is you cannot say that you have not had notice of each and every one of its provisions for over two months. . mr. cantor: i thank jt, madam speaker. again it seems as if we are not going to get an up or down vote on the senate bill in the house, but we will be voting on reconciliation measure. and the instruckses that were included in the budget -- in the budget bill are not legislative text. that is my point, madam speaker. since we are not going to -- since we cannot be guaranteed of a 72-hour period for review,

madam speaker, nor can the american people realize their right to know during the 72-hour period, i would ask the gentleman whether the reconciliation package will contain the house language referred to as the stupak-pitts lang wadge. i yield. -- language. mr. hoyer: i don't have knowledge of that at this time. as my friend does know that that language or any other alternative language may not qualify for reconciliation. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would just like, madam speaker, read a recently reported statement by the gentleman that -- in which he said it is clear that the matter of abortion cannot be dealt with, per se, in the reconciliation bill. so we are pretty much going to have to deal with it as is at this point in time. i ask the gentleman if that is a correct translation of his

remarks having said today. i yield. mr. hoyer: it wasn't a translation. it was an accurate reporting of what i said. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i take that to mean the stupak-pitts language will not be in the reconciliation package. i yield. mr. hoyer: as i said we don't believe any change in that language because the gentleman is well aware reconciliation needs to deal with budgetary impact. we don't believe that that can be dealt with in reconciliation. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would say to the gentleman that there was, and i'm sure he has seen a letter that has been signed by 41 senate republicans in which they indicated they would oppose any effort to waive the so-called byrd rule during the senate's consideration of the reconciliation bill which means to me, madam speaker, it is far from certain that the senate will actually pass the bill when the house sends it to the

senate. and in fact call that to the gentleman's attention that we stand ready to continue to work in another direction, but it seems to me very much in doubt. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i'm glad you brought it up because you brought it up in juxtaposition of the issue of the stupak amendment. what the letter said even if you send over the stupak language, we agree with the stupak language, we will not waive the byrd rule. even though they agree with the polcy, they won't waive the byrd rule, why? they want to defeat the bill. we understand that. that's what the letter said. i think americans probably if they knew enough about the process and can't take the time to do what you and i do, follow this very closely, they know what's going on. and very frankly it's ironic that 41 senators would say notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the proposition that we put in the

bill and send it over to them, that they would not waive the rule to adopt the proposition with which they agree for procedural purposes of defeating the bill. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman. i would indicate that in that letter there is no specific language that directly relates to an abortion provision or any other. and the gentleman i know agrees that this country has had a long-standing tradition of denying government funding for abortion services. that is the very important issue behind the stupak-pitts language and in fact 45 senators voted in favor of that language. just as a majority of this house voted for that language, which is why it is so important, i think, that the members as well as their constituents understand that you will not be including the stupak-pits -- stupak-pitts language, the protection that

will guarantee no government money goes towards abortion services. which is why i bring the point up. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. because as the gentleman knows the language in the senate bill specifically provides for no government funding. i know there is a dispute because there is a contribution towards policies, but as you know the senate drew language very carefully to ensure that no public funds were spent for or participated in purchasing insurance for abortion services. in fact, as the gentleman i'm sure well knows, the senate language specifically provides that if those protections are going to be purchased, they must be purchased by separate payment with non-- either subsidy dollars or government dollars. that they must be spent out of

an individual's personal pocket. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i say to the gentleman if that's his interpretation and belief that this language in the senate bill protects that long-standing tradition, that may be. however the u.s. catholic bishops as well as right to life have strongly, strongly opposed the language in the senate bill as not having the adequate safeguards to deny government funding of abortion services. i think -- mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: this is an extraordinary issue difficult -- difficult issue not only for congress but americans. there is a dispute. as he knows, neither side likes the language in the senate bill. one side, the pro-choice side if you will, for

simplification, believes that the language goes beyond the hyde language. the catholic bishops believe it is short of the hyde language. there is a difference of opinion on that. i think the gentleman understands that. there are other groups which believe that in fact the language that is in the senate bill does, in fact, do as i have projected it does, precludes any public dollars from being spent which is consistent with the hyde language. i tell my friend that from our perspective on this side of the aisle there is no intent nor objective of changing the hyde language in any health care legislation that is adopted. the president's indicated that's his intent, that's our intent. and that's where -- why we are

proceeding in the mapper we are. -- manner we are. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for the clarification of his intent. i would say again the catholic bishops as well as the right to life organizations seem very much in opposition to this language. i stand with them. i would ask the gentleman, madam speaker, that the parliamentarian in the senate has ruled that the senate cannot take up the reconciliation package until the senate-passed health care bill is signed into law. that is the bill, madam speaker, that contains provisions such as the cornhusker kickback. i would ask the gentleman if it is his position that that would be the case, that this house must pass the senate bill first, it must be signed into law before the senate can even take up the reconciliation package? i yield. mr. hoyer: i think the gentleman correctly states the senate parliamentarian's position.

and therefore i think the gentleman is correct. on that observation. i might say to him that while i do not know the entire thrust of the reconciliation bill, i can guarantee him this, the reconciliation bill will take out that nebraska provision which offended him, offended me, and i think offended people across america. not because it advantaged nebraska but because it advantaged nebraska unequally. i think the gentleman's going to be pleased that nebraska will be treated like every other state, and in fact every other state will be advantaged to the same extent that the senator wanted to make sure that nebraska was advantaged. but the nebraska provision to which the gentleman speaks and which all of us felt was inappropriate will be changed. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. in closing, madam speaker, i look forward to working with the gentleman in trying to refocus the issue of this house

on getting americans back to work. and the gentleman did indicate that there will be further action in what he is calling a jobs agenda. certainly that didn't happen today as we are here already having finished the legislative business of the day and only having considered a bill dealing with algae. i only mention this because 52% of americans do think that jobs and the economy are the nation's top issue. and by contrast, only 13% of americans think that health care is our nation's top priority. this was according to a cbs/"new york times" poll. i do thank the gentleman for his willingness, hopefully, to get back to the question of how we get america back to work. i yield back. i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yield. first of all let me say to the gentleman from virginia that maryland and virginia and a lot of other states think the bill

we passed through this house on algae is critically important for the health of the chesapeake bay. i'm sure the gentleman shares that view with me. critically important bill for the health of our bay and its estuaries. i happen to live on a river. the gentleman's state feels the chesapeake bay is a major asset of his as well. so i know that he's pleased we passed that bill. it was an important bill. we are here trying to make sure that we have the time to get ready to pass a major, historic piece of legislation that teddy roosevelt set us on the path to accomplish. over a century ago. so that we have accomplished, i think, a significant piece of legislation today. let me say that in addition to that we believe the jobs agenda is very important. we passed a bill through here

last week, the senate passed a bill over to us. we are in the process of considering those bills. and i want to say to the gentleman that i share his view, that we look forward to working together to try to get americans back to work. i won't go through a litany of how we got here. the gentleman has heard it before. but i will tell the gentleman this part of it, that -- in the four months of the last administration, he well knows, we lost over 700,000 jobs per month. during the last four months here we lost 27,000 jobs per month. that's a 95% reduction in the loss of jobs. surely anybody who is fair-minded would say that's progress. it is not success. we need to create jobs. we have lost eight million jobs over the last two years. people are hurting in america. families are hurting in

america. we need to get people back to work. we are going to keep continuing to make sure that when they can't find a job because they are not available, that they don't go hugery -- hungry. that they can support themselves and their families not to the level that they would have if he were working but certainly support themselves in a way we think is humanitarian. so those are included in those bills as the gentleman knows. but i will tell the gentleman that we feel keenly that the pain of the american public confronting this historic, great recession, the deepest recession we have seen in 75 years, the gentleman knows that in the decade of the 1990's we saw the best economy that you and i have seen in our lifetime. and i of course am very substantially older than you are. that's an admission against interest but nevertheless it's true. so i yield back to the gentleman saying we share your view.

we want to continue to work on this jobs agenda. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for the his -- his view of history. i also would like to say to the gentleman, madam speaker, i share his commitment to the preservation of the chesapeake bay. i do, however, think that the american people are most interested in seeing us get back on to the business of focusing on the economy. that is why i raise the issue of our being here today not doing anything today to promote job creation. as far as any karl we may have with history and why we got or how we got where we are today, i would just like to quote to the gentleman in closing, winston churchill's speech to the house of commons, june 18, 1940, he said, of this i am quite sure, that if we open a karl -- quarrel between the past and present we shall find we have lost our future. with that, madam speaker, i yield back.

. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for being recognized and i might say before my friend leaves that no person in recent history more than winston chump hill has said that we need to learn from our history than winston church hill. i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it meet at 12:30 p.m. monday next for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will entertain requests for speeches for one minute. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: madam speaker, the president just had a physical and is apparently very healthy and among the tests he had was a colonoscopy to screen for col

rectal cancer. it employs x-ray technology and produces a three dimensional image of the collin structure. it is much less invasive and does not require sedation for a standard colonoscopy. i bring this up because the centers for medicaid and medicare services have denied this procedure for seniors enrolled in medicare. it is the third most common cancer diagnosed among men and women in the united states and the second leading cause of cancer death despite having a 90% curate when detected early. many insurers cover this virtual procedure but not medicare. the national cancer institute col rectal cancer progress review group predicts that the minimal invasiveness and the lower cost of this procedure would attract more people to be screened with a possibility of saving 20,000 lives annually. the president has set an example, the american cancer society recommends it, medicare should provide it as a cover procedure and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman will be recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you, madam speaker. i served on the homeland security committee tragically since the occurrences of 9/11 and i want to congratulate this nation for moving toward securing its people in a way that balancing civil liberties and as well recognizes ours. as the chairwoman of the committee i want to acknowledge that in looking at how we treat our guests that come from other countries we should always continue to review those circumstances. just a few days ago our guest from pakistan, pakistani parliamentarian, were traveling through our airport and were

detained and asked a number of questions even though they were traveling with state department escorts as we understand it. i believe it is important to always remain secure but to be -- but to remain balanced as well. i think it is appropriate that we look again at our procedures to ensure that our international diplomatic guests receive the kind of responsible treatment that is appropriate. we thank those who serve us on the front lines but i will be looking forward to a full report by the department of homeland security and i offer to those dignitaries our respect because we do believe in international diplomacy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, it is irresponsible for congress to continue debating an increasingly unpopular and costly health care bill at a time of recordbreaking deficit and uncertainty about our economy. we should focus on reducing

spending and creating jobs. in tuesday's "the new york times" columnist david brooks editorialized that the majority's passion for coverage has swamped their commitment to reducing the debt. the result is a bill that is fundamentally imbalanced. brooks wrote that they've stuffed the legislation with gimmicks and dodges designed to get a good score from the congressional budget office but that don't genuinely control runaway spending. he points out that the bill appears deficit-neutral because it immediately collects revenues but doesn't pay for benefits until 2014. it also doesn't include $300 billion in additional costs because it assumes congress will cut medicare reimbursement by 21%. unfortunately this proposed government takeover of health care has blocked the path to reasonable reform. we can and must work together on a bipartisan basis to achieve real reform that will bring down costs and increase access for

all americans without increasing the national debt. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. jones of north carolina for today, ms. kilpatrick of michigan for today, mrs. napolitano of california for today, mr. walden of oregon for today, mr. young of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extends their remarks and include therein extraneous

material. mr. whitfield today for five minutes, mr. burton march 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 for five minutes, mr. poe march 19 five minutes, mr. jones march 19 five minutes, mr. dreier today for five minutes, ms. foxx today, march 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> thank you, madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. cummings from maryland for five minutes, ms. woolsey from california for five minutes, mr. defazio from oregon for five minutes, ms. kaptur from ohio for five minutes, ms. jackson

lee from texas for five mints, mr. garamendi from california for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house the following members are recognized for five minutes. mr. cummings of maryland. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> request unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you, madam chair. if i might, we heard just a moment ago from one of our esteemed colleagues from the republican side that there were no savings in the health care bill. in fact, there are substantial savings, at least according to the congressional budget office, and over time the american deficit would be substantialally reduced. let me just tell i -- substantially reduced. let me tell you some of the

reasons why. first of all, by extending coverage to most americans you eliminate one of the most difficult cost increases in the system. and that is that the uninsured wind up in the emergency room, usually very, very sick and that gets to be a very, very expensive matter and that cost is in the system and it's passed on to both the federal government as well as to those people that are buying private insurance. also there's a major effort in the legislation to extend the medical technology information systems, we know that that will reduce errors and omissions and create not only better care but reduce costs. we know that the system will also have a medicare panel to look at ways of reducing the cost in the medicare system. finally there are programs in the system and in the legislation to promote wellness. healthy people are not

expensive. if you're well you're not going to be increasing the cost of the system. there are many, many parts of this bill that will significantly reduce the cost and therefore this is a good piece of legislation. finally i want to speak to one of the issues that our republican colleagues constantly put before us as a way of reducing costs and this is the ability of the insurance companies to sell products across state lines. now, i was the insurance commissioner in california for eight years. 1991 to 1995 and again 2003 to 2007. during that period of time we had insurance companies that were not licensed for business in california selling products illegally in the state of california. there was a reason why we had a procedure to make sure that insurance companies that were selling health insurance in california were licensed. we wanted to know that they were legitimate companies, that they actually would be able to have the financial strength to pay

claims and that their policy actually provided benefits. and that they were able to carry out the contract that they had made with people. all too often we found that companies that were selling policies illegally in california without the proper license were selling junk to the public and individuals, i remember a case in san diego, a woman who was working, a lawyer, had lost her employment with a law firm, went out and purchased an individual policy, it was cheap, it was actually too good to believe. she got sick and she wound up with an enormous expenditure that she had to actually file bankruptcy in order to cover that cost. so we know that if companies are simply selling across state lines without the proper underlying strength and without the proper regulation it will not solve the problem. in fact, it will create a whole set of other problems. that is not the solution. what we need is the national program and in fact we have such

a program in the proposal that will hopefully be before us next week. that proposal establishes a national benefit program, it establishes a mechanism for the pooling of risk and pooling of companies in what are called exchanges, these are state and regional exchanges or a national exchange. that is a procedure that is in the bill and does provide the kind of protections that every consumer needs and also provides some competition because one of those companies that will be operating in the exchange, at least the national exchange, will be a nonprofit company that will have a national reach and be able to have the strength of being able to spread the risk across the entire nation and all parts of it. so looking forward to next week, it's going to be a terrific week. we will finally deal with something that the nation has wrestled with for a century and that is how to expand health insurance to the entire population. we're well on the road and with

that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. poe of texas. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccotter: madam speaker, today i rise to acknowledge the division i state champion wrestling team from my alma mater, detroit catholic central high school. on february 27, 2010, the catholic central shamrocks defeated rockford 39-24 to host their first state championship trophy since 1988. third year coach mitch hancock, an individual state final winner for the shamrocks in 2000, saw all 14 of his wrestlers to the individual state finals. this is the first time that an entire team has qualified for the individual state meet. three shamrock wrestlers brought home individual state titles to compliment the team championship. following in the remarkable

tradition of legendary catholic central coach mike rodriguez who was both coach and mentor to current coach mitch hancock. the shamrocks brought home their eighth state wrestling team title and earned coach hancock the division i honors for wrestling coach of the year. madam speaker, with a season record of 27-4 the 2010 catholic central shamrocks deserve to be recognized for their determination, achievement and spirit and we're all very proud of their determination and effort. equally, madam speaker, i also rise today to acknowledge the division i state championship bowling team from my alma mater, detroit catholic central high school. this has been a note worth j year for the gentlemen -- note yort -- noteworthy for -- noteworthy year for the gentlemen there. the michigan high school athletic association recognized the bowling team as an official sport in 2006. thus it is impressive how the catholic central team has risen to state prominence in a very

short time. two members of the state championship bowling team qualified for the individual finals and although they did not ultimately win they represented c.c. high admiraly and honorably. this year after defeating salem in the quarter finals, the shamrock bowlers outdueled to earn a birth in the finals. setting them up to take on at that dakota. the shamrocks rolled over dakota 1,834-1,565 to earn their first state championship trophy. they were in seventh place after the morning qualifying round, yet they kept fighting and refused to give up c.c. kept moving up in the standings from that point, the shamrocks never looked back. coach bridges credits good

conditioning and a lot of practice for the payoff of winning a championship. in earning their first bowling title, the catholic central shamrocks deserve to be recognized for their determination and spirit. the hard work and dedication of each of these teams epitomizes what it means to be a shamrock. through discipline and knowledge the entire central catholic family, including this alumnus, share in their accomplishment. i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the catholic central shamrocks, live and die c.c. high. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of california. mr. jones of north carolina.

mr. defazio of oregon. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. whitfield of kentucky. the gentleman is are recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to discuss an issue that i think very few people in america are aware of. it relates to the very important topic of nuclear waste, and the impact that that has upon our federal policy and its effect on our energy needs and our federal debt. most americans support nuclear power as a major source of our electricity and today it provides 20% of all the electricity produced in america. now we know that over the next

15 or 20 years, our demand for electricity is going to double what it is today. and i might also remind everyone that coal is providing 51% of all the electricity produced in america. and as i said, nuclear power provides about 20%. now the administration and many people are focused on alternative forms of energy, particularly solar and nuclear. i'm sorry, solar and wind power. now all the experts will tell you that, while, yes, some energy can be produced from solar and wind power, it will never come close to meeting the demands of the american people in energy. and i might add on the nuclear

power front, today in america, we have 109 nuclear power plants in america. located in 39 states across the country. and each one of those sites, nuclear waste is being stored today. and it does have major impact on our environment, it has major concerns for security, and it has major costs for the american people. now the solution that congress came up with many years ago was to build yucca mountain as a deep repository to store this waste indepeff in itly. -- indefinitely. unfortunately, last week, president obama withdrew the license application for a high-level nuclear waste

repository at yucca mountain. now this application was before the nuclear regulatory commission to look at from a scientific standpoint of could this repository at yucca mountain safely take care of this waste for the american people for hundreds of years in the future? and i might also add that the american taxpayer has already spent billions of dollars trying to build this repository at yucca mountain. not only did president obama jerk back the application so that it cannot be considered anymore, but now the department of energy is asking that -- asking the appropriations committee for approval to reprogram all of the money that was going to yucca mountain in

2010, which in essence would stop all movement in the development of yucca mountain and the solution for storage of this high-level waste. so the question that i would have for president obama and his administration today is this, very simply, what are we going to do with all the waste currently being stored at the 109 nuclear sites around the nation? now the president has appointed a blue panel commission to come up with a solution to this problem. as i said, we've already spent billions of dollars on yucca mountain. in fact, in the very near future, it's getting ready to open. why is it important on -- and what are we going to do with this nuclear waste stored at

these 109 sites around the country. it's important for this reason. number one in 1988, congress passed a nuclear policy waste act, and it, in essence, said that the federal government was going to be responsible -- would be responsible for taking care of this as a result of the policies we have adopted so far today, here's our situation. the utility companies who are now depending on the federal government to store this waste for them are now filing lawsuits against the federal government. they've already obtained judgments in excess of $11 billion against the federal government and experts are saying that additional lawsuits will cost the federal government $56 billion. so i want to raise this issue with the american people and make them aware that this

decision on yucca mountain not only is a security issue for america but it also is a costly decision for the american taxpayer at a time when we already have a federal debt of $14 trillion. the speaker pro tempore: ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i request permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i rise today to pay tribute to a fallen hero, my friend, the late congressman john murtha. during the time of his memorial services, and the special hour that was rendered on this floor, my statements were not able to be submitted because i wanted to speak directly on the floor in his honor.

john murtha was, of course, a husband, a father, a loved one, a marine, and a patriot. what we loved most about john murtha was his love for the united states military. unwavering and always steadfast . he was a family man that loved his family. and a congressperson that loved his people. those he represented were so very important in his mind and in his heart he came to this floor and to this house recently from battle, having served in the vietnam war on everything occasions. knowing what it is to have been shot at and to be in battle on

behalf of your nation. that true lesson gave him a cause for life and the cause for life was to be able to fight for the men and women of the united states military. but he did not stop there. as chairman of the subcommittee on defense on the appropriations committee, he fought for the families of the united states military. the wives and husbands and the children. he fought for a better quality of life and health care and housing. he fought for better standards if you will, and yes, he recognized the importance of leave time, r&r, coming out of battle and there was no greater champion during the midst of the iraq war, the most recent war, who fought to give relief to soldiers on the battlefield who were doing tours of duty one after another. he was a man of courage. he didn't step away from a fight. but he also was a friend. if he gave you his word, he

would fight on behalf of your constituents as he was -- as he would fight on behalf of his. in fact, mr. speaker, he was an american's american. all america. and if it has something to do with bettering the lives of american, you can be assured john murtha was there. he took a very tough stand a few years ago. the eyes of those who knew him as a champion of the military fighting for their cause, standing alongside of them, wondered what happened when he stood up with his eloquent voice, steady voice, and spoke about the iraq war, calling for the soldiers to come home. that's courage. because he'd been a supporter of that war, but he saw it crumbling before his eyes. oh, yes, there'd been an election over the last couple of days, but we always wonder what direction and how we could have handled it differently so the lives laid down did not have to be laid down in a war

in iraq. the champion for me military saw that there was a crack in the system and he chose to speak eloquently about it. i miss john murtha. this body misses john murtha. democrats and republicans. america misses john murtha. but the one good news about john murtha's life is that his legacy will live on forever and ever and ever. i thank him for serving, for living, and to his family, god bless you and may he rest in peace. speaker, i will submit a statement into the record next week that will also speak to the qualities and the honor of john murtha, the late congressman from pennsylvania. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier of california. for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise? >> i rise to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. berkley: thank you. i was in the doctor's office when i -- a moment ago and i had the opportunity to be watching c-span and listen to what the gentleman from kentucky said about yucca mountain and i just thought i'd better come down here and set the record straight. obviously my esteemed colleague from kentucky doesn't know the yucca mountain issue very well. with this five minutes i'd like to help enlighten him and the rest of my colleagues. the state of nevada is opposed to storing this nation's nuclear waste at yucca mountain, nevada. president obama pulled the plug because, and only because, there is no scientific evidence and there never has been that yucca mountain can safely store thousands and thousands of tons of toxic radioactive nuclear

waste within the yucca mountain complex. let me tell you why, mr. speaker. at yucca mountain, we have discovered there are groundwater issues, seismic activity, volcanic activity, to refresh everybody's memory, the e.p.a., environmental protection agency, had a radiation standard of 10,000 years, where they wanted to be able to safely store this nation's nuclear waste thousands and thousands of tons of radioactive material, for 10,000 years. the u.s. court of appeals overthrew that radiation standard and let me share with you why. because they determined, based on scientific evidence, that the peak radiation time -- radiation standard should be 300,000 years because that's

when radiation reaches its peak. so the 10,000 year radiation standard thrown out by the u.s. court of appeals, and they could never figure out how to come up with a radiation standard that tracks with the scientific evidence there is no way to safely transport radioactive nuclear waste across 43 states in order to be buried in a hole in the nevada desert where, i remind you, we have groundwater problems, seismic activity and volcanic activity. there are no canisters that currently exist, they do not exist, that can safely transport and store nuclear waste. not in yucca mountain, not anywhere. and we had better figure out as a nation before we start building more nuclear power plants that create more nuclear waste what we are going to do with the byproduct of nuclear energy which is the nuclear

waste. this country has been single focused and the people of nevada have said year after year, decade after decade, we are not the answer, we don't want to be this nation's garbage pan and garbage dump for this nation's nuclear waste. we do not produce one nanogram, not one speck of energy using nuclear in the state of nevada. so why should we be accepting everybody's nuclear waste? if you have a nuclear power plant in your district, in your state, well, that's fine, then you figure out what you're going to do with the nuclear waste that's produced by creating nuclear energy. the idea that nevada should be the repository and some people call it the is he posstory for nuclear waste in this -- sepository for nuclear waste is an absurdity.

we thank the president of the united states for standing with the people of the state of nevada. we don't want this nuclear waste. it is dangerous and we join with everyone else in trying to come up with a solution. but this myth that we're going to have one repository instead of 43 or 33 or however many nuclear power plants we have in this country is preposterous because these power plants are going to keep creating nuclear waste. so we are not eliminating nuclear dump sites, we're creating an extra one. can't do it, shouldn't do it, won't do it and i urge my colleagues to join with me and come up with a suitable method of dealing with our nuclear waste. yucca mountain just is not that answer. and it never will be. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the lady yields back. foxx from north carolina. for what reason do you rise?

ms. foxx: to address the house for five minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, you have five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. republicans have been talking for over three years about the problem of our debt -- the debt and deficit facing our nation. we as well as average americans have realized that these problems are a threat to our existence as the greatest and freest nation on earth. for what the democrats are proposing to do in passing a health care bill that americans do not want is an even more immediate threat to the future of this nation. let me explain just a little bit about that. what the democrats are proposing to do is to pass a government takeover of health care that the

american people do not want. because they have a political problem, because there is no support for this bill among americans they are going to use a procedural mechanism to avoid an up or down vote on the bill that the senate passed on christmas eve. they are going to create a reconciliation bill that meets the senate test for reconciliation. if the ma -- as the majority leader kept saying out here a few minutes ago, we're not the senate, we don't have reconciliation rules, he kept making that point over and over again. but they're going to create a mechanism to pass a bill in the

house to match reconciliation rules over in the senate. the -- what they want to do is to develop mechanics to hide a vote on the senate bill and create a scheme to pass a bill in the house that will then pass muster in the senate. it is a cramdown and despite what the majority leader keeps saying about the fact that we've seen the bill, we know what's in the bill, we have not. bills have to be developed in bill language and we have to see specifically what it is we're going to vote on. the president has never presented a bill to the american

people. what the president did present, about three weeks ago, was an 11-page proposal. that's exactly what it's called on the president's website. the president's proposal, february 22, 2010. it's really 10 pages with one line on the 11th page. and it has general language, it makes insurance more affordable, it sets up competitive health insurance markets, ends discrimination against americans with pre-existing conditions and it says it bridges the gap between the house and senate bills and includes new provisions to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse. this is not legislation -- legislative language. we cannot vote on something like this. in addition, one of my colleagues just pointed out to

me that there is a 19-page summary of the 11-page proposal on the white house website. you know, if you haven't read "1984" i ask you, read it. if it's been a long time since you've read it, read it again. now, let me give you an example of specific legislation -- legislative language. this is a page out of the senate bill that passed. i don't know the section before, but this starts out with 1, it's page 35, requirement to provide value for premium payments. a health insurance shoers -- issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, with respect to each plan here, provide an annual rebate to each enrollow under such coverage in an amount that is equal to the amount by which premium revenue expended by the issuer on activities

described in subsection a, present cease a, present these 3, exceeds. then it has an a and a b and a 2. that is specific language that we -- that is used in bills that we pass here every day. what the president has proposed is not legislative language. what they want to do is use something called the slaughter slight of hands. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. foxx: and the american people don't want it. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cummings: to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to commend to this house the memory of one of my constituents, the reverend david joshua crumb, who at the age of 42 died suddenly

on february 20 of this year. reverend crumb was a young man of strong personal faith coming from a long line of leaders in america's faith community, including bishop alexander waymonday. his parents, reverends izsel and elaine crumb are ministers in my home town of baltimore. so many of america's young people are struggling to come of age without strong and loving fathers in their lives, reverend david crumb's commitment to their upbringing was a beacon of personal and social responsibility for us all. i had the occasion to attend the funeral of the late reverend david crumb and his foster children, a number of them, came forward and talked about how he

had touched their lives and how he had opened so many doors for them. and what a wonderful parent he was. not only that, david crump compelled in his mastery of -- excelled in that mastery of that most valuable kind of wisdom, insights that help us remain focused clearly upon what is truly important in our lives. in 1998 i invited the congressional black caucus to baltimore for a field investigation hearing of our local responses to he list drug use in hiv-aids. we chose mica's cafeteria as the primary site for our hearing. david crump's family owned mica's and david was the master chef and maitre d' at the restaurant. and during our field hearing there he made a very favorable impression on all of our c.b.c. colleagues. our positive response went beyond the excellent quality of

the restaurant's food. we were heartened by how well david worked with mica's staff and the young people who worked with him. these young men and women were building better lives for themselves and a lot of that had to do with david's leadership and his compassion for them. it soon became apparent that david crump was at the heart of a transformation that was worth our understanding. in the years that follow, i would often find david reaching out to the young, giving them the opportunity to find themselves in life-affirming settings. this calling was at the center of his faith. so often people go to church and prayer meetings and never, when they come out the door, they forget their faith, but he never forgot. not only was he a great foster parent but he was a very loving husband. with his wife, teresa minutea,

he built a home full of love and laughter for the children who came into their lives. he was a man of good humor and a gentle spirit, a good father and husband who is devoted to his god and to his family. one of the things that i said at his funeral was that if i'd ever met someone who tried to walk in the path that god had laid out, it was david crump. mr. speaker, recently i was thinking about reverend crump's example as i read comments that attorney generic holder made during a recent speech. encouraging men to take more responsibility for our children at homes, attorney general holder said that, i've hold many titles in my life but the title i'm most proud of is father. a father's role in the life of a child is irreplaceable. stressing that we must do more to create a culture of mutual respect, our attorney general

went on to say that we hold the future in our hands. he went on to say, we as men need to spend more time with our sons and daughters. we need to teach our sons to have respect for women and daughters to demand respect for themselves. this saying -- same wisdom was at the heart of david crump's ministry and his personal life. his vision and commitment are examples that we all would be well advised to follow. i strongly believe that government has important roles to play in rebuilding america's communities yet i also understand that we as individual citizens are the critical element in the social transformation that this nation needs to undertake. reverend david crump understood this, both in his ministry and in his personal commitment to the young people in his life. and with that, mr. speaker, he was indeed a wonderful role model and with that i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: under

the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. goal rt, is recognized for -- gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i very much appreciate this opportunity to speak here on the floor. the topic again will be health care because even though most of americans are more concerned about the economy, as am i, and jobs, because the president keeps trying to shove this thing into the lap of americans, actually it will control the lap of americans, we have to deal with this until we can start over, start fresh, get the special interest groups, the unions, a.r.p., those people who have been meeting in the last few weeks, behind closed doors, away from c-span cameras, getting special deals for

themselves, we start over, we start fresh and the number-one most important aspect is not the unions, it's not aarp, it is retired people, it is seniors, it's americans across the country, it's the poor, it's the wealthy, it's everybody. those people who are united states citizens, those are the number-one concern, should be under a newly negotiated bill. i just got sent a copy of an email that's gone all over the country, apparently from a group organizing against america, i'm sorry, it's organizing for america. it just sounds like they're organizing against america. and it is -- it has an individual's name, first name, and it says, president obama has called for the house to vote to move health reform

forward as early as next week. your representative, in this case, louie gohmert, voted last fall to allow insurance companies to continue to jack up rates, drop coverage when folks need it the most, and discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. you know, the rules of the house do not permit me from calling this what it is. that's a lie. that's simply not true. but it goes on to say, we're in the final march, one last chance to do the right thing, it says call representative gohmert today, and it says let them know, not correct grammar, that's not the only thing that's not correct, but know there's a political price to favoring big insurance companies over the american people. the organization against --

organizing against -- organizing for america's supporters in texas have pledged $50 -- have pledged 506,308 volunteer hour for candidates who support reform. what they're apparently not aware is, the vast majority of americans, the vast majority in my district, they know what this bill, got four volumes to get it all, that's the bill passed in the house they know what this represents. it's a government takeover, not just of health care but a whole lot more than that. anyway, that's the stuff that's going out in this hour of desperation to try to cram this bill through, cram it down on america, and i heard our valiant speaker pelosi, saw and heard the video of the speaker saying, we've got to pass this bill so that we can find out

what's in it. and i understand she was talking about apparently there's a big fog around the bill and we really won't see what's in the bill until we pass it and then the fog is lifted, but some of us have been concerned that we need to look at this bill and everybody needs to know what's in it now, and not wait until later. we also, we know that secretly negotiated, saw an aarp rep and union rep saying that before the summit, the president was going to have his health care bill that would be discussed at the summit between republicans and democrats. i know my friend eric cantor brought a copy of the bill and it seemed like that made people mad. i suggested they have a copy of the senate bill and house bill there so when somebody made a representation that wasn't accurate as to what was represented in the bill, you could immediately turn to the

bill during the summit and correct whatever inaccuracy was painted. one of the problems with the president's health care bill, like my friend ms. foxx pointed out earlier, is there is still no president's bill he came here and spoke from the second level up, he said my bill this bill, my plan, this plan, but as i asked secretary sebelius later, i said, i've been trying to find a copy of the president's bill, said he was going to call us out if we misrepresented of it, and i want to know where i can get a copy of it. that's when she told us, well, i think he's talking about a set of proposals or principles. i was told by c.b.o. they could not score my plan until i had it in a hard and fast bill and so we did. we got it in bill form and that took a lot of work because the

legislative council that prepares the bills in legislative form were so busy with the democratic bills that were being shoved to the front so quickly, but we did that, we got it filed, then we couldn't get a c.b.o. scoring, we were told in august you don't have the request from the highest ranking republican on the committee of jurisdiction. energy and commerce. so i talked to republican joe barton and joe said, yeah, it sounds great, let's get it done. he sent a request that my bill be scored. then, a month later, we were told, well, you know, we haven't scored it. you still don't have the request or approval of the highest ranking republican on

the joint tax committee. i got republican dave camp, told him about it, he sent a letter, said please score this bill. that was in september. somewhere around there. in the meantime, any time a democratic leader doesn't have a bill, just has an idea, a plan, wow, they can rush that in to c.b.o. and every now and then c.b.o. will say, you know, you just don't give us enough to work from, we're making presumptions but here's a score, usually is what they get to anyway. that is something that is so grossly unfair. there is a -- a 70-page summary, i'm sorry a summary of 70 bills, health care bills in this document here that have been filed by republicans to help reform health care. so if someone bothered to read that before they sent out a false email saying we don't want to do anything to reform

insurance, they'd find out they're wrong. we've got all kinds of good proposals. the truth is, and i'll say it again, all the people i know want health care reformed, they don't want it insurance companies between us and our doctors or between any american and their doctors, and they don't want government in between them and their doctors. that's what we're trying to get to. and even though c.b.o. hasn't been kind enough to, after all these months, and we have the tai tahir that show what is c.b.o. has done, there have been 50 total bills formally scored, health care bills, in the 111th congress, and six of them, six, have been republican plans. we've got 70 others we'd like to get scored, but they're not going to get to those, they're

not even going to get to mine. in the 111th congress, there have been a total of 530 bills scored by c.b.o. 442 were for democrats, 88 from republicans. we didn't even get that good odds as far as the health care scoring. so we're, you know, obviously working at a severe disadvantage here and i know that there are so many things the president said that even though they're inaccurate he has no intent to deceive, it's just when you're president of the united states, obviously you can't have all the facts at your fingertips, you have to rely on people who work for you to give you accurate information. unfortunately, our good president has not been given all the accurate information he needs in order to address things properly. i've been joined by my good friend from georgia and i would like to yield such time as mr.

lynn westmoreland might need. mr. westmoreland: i want to thank the gentleman from texas for taking this special order to come talk about the health care bill that regardless of what anybody says is actually being rammed through the process. and the reason it's being rammed through is i think my friend from texas mentioned, the american people are not in favor of this health care bill. it also, i believe, is unconstitutional that we're going to require our citizens to buy health care. that should be a choice that every individual makes, whether they buy health care or don't buy health care, they may be in a -- in an economic situation where they don't need it or they may be young and they may be doing health savings accounts. we need to be promoting the health savings accounts. another way that young people can do things to help provide

health care for themselves without the government forcing them to buy a health insurance program. the other thing i think is interesting is the unions get a special break out of this. you know, i thought that everything that we did in this body was supposed to be fair to everybody. but what they're doing is they're making a difference in this health care proposal that if you have neighbors living beside one another and one is a union employee and the other is a nonunion employee, they're making the same amount of money, their health benefits are going to be taxed differently. now why should that be? i think that's one of the disservices that has come about through this bill, there's so much inequity between individuals. it all depends on how much money you make, where you live, there's also going to be a czar

that we don't know who that's going to be and we don't really know what his or her full capability is going to be and what they're going to regulate. but i would say to my friend from texas that they may tell you that the current health care plan you have, that you're happy with, does not meet the federal requirements. this plan also establishes about 111 new commissions, boards, and agencies that we have no idea what their responsibility or what their rules or what their regulations are going to be and what other type of impact they're going to have on our freep freeh dom and privacy. the interesting thing is that they continue, the leadership continues to talk about how many jobs this is going to create. if it creates any jobs, they will be government jobs. we need to create private

sector jobs. we need to be concentrating on the economy. all the political capital that has been spent on health care, and not only on health care, this most open, honest, ethical congress that we were promised by their minority -- by then-minority leader nancy pelosi, now speaker pelosi is the fact that they've been tide up with ethics investigation -- tied up with ethics investigations of congressman rangel. we've had the tickle wrestling controversy that just came up lately about young people being allowed tore subject to sexual harassment. now we need to be concentrating on jobs. most of my constituents are calling me saying, look, where are the jobs? you passed a $787 billion stimulus package that was

supposed to keep unemployment from going from 8% any higher. it's at 9.7%. the only jobs that's been created has been government jobs. we created about 5,000 jobs with cash for clunkers. we have created over 120,000 government jobs since this president has been in office. we need to be concentrating on our economy, creating jobs from the private sector. we need to be freeing up credit. we need to be making it so small business has an initiative to hire people. the jobs bill we passed through here was really a joke. my friend from texas, i'm sure you talked to many of your small business people and said, congressman, do they really think i'm going to go out and hire somebody for $30,000 or $35,000 a year to get a $1,000

tax credit? do they not understand you can't survive in small business doing something that silly? i said, well, the problem is, only about 7% of the people in the president's adever even had a private sector job. and i don't know how many or what percentage of that ever created any jobs or actually was responsible for job creation. what we have got to do is remove the uncertainty that's out there to the small business world. to that employer that is ready to create, to expand, to put infrastructure in our communities. we've got to make sure that he has some certainty. the small business people i talk to go, look, i'm not going to do anything until i have some certainty. the one thing that the 111th congress has brought to the american people and to the people that create jobs in this country is uncertainty. they don't